Miller v. Dailey
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, and George A. Sturtevant, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
A writ of mandate was asked by plaintiff to compel defendants to admit him to the state normal school at San José, and to permit him to enjoy the privileges thereof as a student. The writ was granted and defendants appeal from the judgment. The action is brought against defendant Dailey, as president, and all the teachers constituting, the faculty of said normal school. Among other defenses, defendants set forth in their answer, as authority for their action, a resolution passed on September 21, 1899, by the local board of trustees of said school, which is as follows: “Resolved,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyne v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Rhoda v. Alameda Cty.California Supreme Court · 1877
- Wysinger v. CrookshankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Tape v. HurleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Niles v. Orange Training School for NursesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goldberg v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Peterson v. School BoardMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- Paulsen v. Golden Gate UniversityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Banks v. Dominican CollegeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- School District No. 1 v. School District No. 45Oregon Supreme Court · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.